June 2011

Hypothesis: It's GOOD that the US middle class (and lower) is becoming desperate, because in order to change behaviors drastically, it's going to require masses of people doing whatever it takes for them to survive, and the uberwealthy will in turn need to set up and financially support the rules so that "doing whatever it takes" actually is survivable.

(My own objection: most of the uberwealthy are too out of touch to understand what needs to be done, how quickly, and how extensively.)

The famous marshmallow test, with the results that kids who were able to delay their gratification performed better academically leads me to wonder:

If we admitted kids to school based on the marshmallow test rather than birthdate, would kids be able to at least *begin* their academic experience without being at a cognitive disadvantage, and presumably without adults correcting their behavior so often that their emotional association is that school oppressive? In other words, is this another case where correlation doesn't imply causality?

The New Sustainability is the cover story on launch day for a brand new online magazine which is branding itself as a news source for optimism and solutions. The main thesis, "It's wrong to think economic growth and sustainability are mutually exclusive." That's it. Though there is a shower scene where the author notes that even though people are dying of thirst elsewhere, the (un-bylined) auther did his or her best creative work in the shower, so....

I tried to be brief.

Financial growth is meaningless. It's what we measure, but it's not what we want - what we want is the ability to exchange money for goods and services that make us happy and healthy. In other words, we need growth in intangible assets, such as trusted relationships, an environment conducive to mental and physical health, the ability to attain and maintain health, and continued learning.

But we don't relate any of that as growth in the US. So "economic growth" becomes useless as a measurement of the success of our "economy," and sustainability is a term that also requires a thorough understanding of the ACTUAL things we have and want, not a projection of our current rate of depleting the environment vs. a rate at which the planet can sustain itself.

The reason you're having trouble tying innovation into sustainability is because you're comparing a straw man with an unused metrics system. The connection is only created by thoroughly understanding intangible assets.

NPR has reported on a really fascinating, solid description of being "overwhelmed": the concept that exercising willpower to make a decision involving tradeoffs or self control lowers the willpower for subsequent decisions. While this can be applied anywhere, they specifically draw the line to the poor: "Many of the tradeoff decisions that the poor have to make every day are onerous and depressing: whether to pay rent or buy food; to buy medicine or winter clothes; to pay for school materials or loan money to a relative. These choices are weighty, and just thinking about them seems to exact a mental cost."

One thing that strikes me is how focusing fear is - you take a bunch of people who are overwhelmed and yell loudly "FEAR THIS!" and they're relieved, because now they're focused, so tradeoffs are suddenly clear. There are days I worry that intellectual progressives make average Joes feel like crap most of the time, that our compassionate examination of every detail is just overwhelming for people, then they have to fight off feeling badly about themselves because we've just said "play nice, even if it's complicated."

Obama came along with "Hope!" as an antidote to "Fear!" and people were able to rally around progressive ideas.

In case you missed it, there it is: the Millenials have ended, and the next in the cycle of oppressed Silent Generations has clearly arrived... In fact, they're now entering 5th grade, poised for adolescence. This generation is parented primarily by "Gen Y" (the last few cohorts of Gen X) and Millenials.

After looking and finding no name for them as yet, I'm going to suggest calling them the Disruptive Generation. The past generation was called "Silent" because their childhood was in the shadow of the Great Depression and World War II, spent looking up to their heroic elders who fought the battles and just being very good children so as not to cause any more problems. They were quiet, serious, married young, had babies right away, worked hard, and then after all that pressure, many just "freaked out" in a way that was terribly destructive to the young GenX, their kids (and made us the self-sufficient, innovative, and uplift-oriented generation we are today).

Another thing to note about the Silents is that the few who did disrupt, changed the world: Martin Luther King, Timothy Leary, Gloria Steinem, Jimi Hendrix...? They were all Silent Generation, not Baby Boomers!

So I suggest it's time to find a name for this generation. To get the party started, I've suggested Disruptive Generation because of its ability to bring courage to those who would disrupt (though it will also be mortifying to the rest of them, and it might encourage the generation's worst behavior to hang on...), but I'm hardly a tastemaker. I'd particularly love to hear from the Silents themselves, 67-83 year olds.